The race is on to replace NATO’s early-warning aircraft fleet – DefenseNews.com

Posted: August 11, 2020 at 2:55 am

WASHINGTON On June 29, a solicitation titled, NATO International Competitive Bidding (ICB): Alliance Future Surveillance and Control (AFSC) Project-Risk Reduction and Feasibility Study, popped up on Beta.Sam.Gov, a U.S. government contracting site.

The appearance of the notice represented an early, but important, step in a long process of finding a replacement for NATOs fleet of airborne early warning and control AWACS planes, which have seen increased usage over the past five years.

What youve spotted online is the U.S. government preparing U.S. companies for this upcoming call for bids, a NATO official, speaking on background, explained to Defense News. Allies will then need to decide what form [the new design] should take.

Currently, 18 nations participate in NATOs early-warning-and-control force, which operates 14 E-3As: Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The planes are based at NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Germany.

NATO plans to spend $1 billion for a final service life extension of the aircraft, which would keep it flying until 2035. Any delays in the decision-making process will likely increase the cost for the fleet, meaning there is heavy pressure to hit key milestones for an alliance that rarely buys military gear as collective.

As of July, six consortia from across the alliance have delivered concept studies to NATO leadership; Brussels is currently assessing those concepts with the goal of defining a more narrow scope for requirements before the end of 2020, per the NATO official. That will be followed in 2021 by another round of responses from industry, and a 2023 deep dive by NATO which is likely to set up the final requirements. Overall, the development stage through 2023 has a budget of EUR 118.2 million ($139 million).

In the U.S., expect Boeing and Northrop Grumman to be in the running, while the likely European contenders would be Saab and Airbus, according to Doug Barrie, senior military air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank in London. With all the usual caveats, the most likely outcome is that it is U.S., perhaps with some European add-ons, Barrie predicts.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, agrees that a U.S. prime, and lots of European mandates for local sustainment, support, and upgrade work is a likely outcome.

The European industrial role is a bit complicated by the fact that Airbus has zero experience here, Aboulafia argued. Saab certainly can do the job, but GlobalEye simply doesnt have the capabilities of a higher-end system, which means Boeing, or, just conceivably, Northrop Grumman/Lockheed Martin.

Firms that end up as second-tier suppliers may still end up with a strong work share, depending on how the project shapes up. The official NATO line on the program follows the system of systems approach currently popular inside the U.S. Air Force, with the idea that a single platform may not be the optimal solution.

The replacement for the AWACS aircraft could include different combinations of systems in the air, on land, at sea, in space and in cyberspace, the NATO official said. The aim is for the solution to be ready by 2035, when the AWACS aircraft reach the end of their service life.

Barrie sees costs and benefits to either approach, noting that a distributed system is less vulnerable overall to kinetic attack but is heavily reliant on connectivity, while a traditional setup is more vulnerable to physical attack, but if there is onboard command and control less reliant overall on wider connectivity and off-board analysis.

Adds Aboulafia, That system-of-systems approach is a good talking point, but creating the broader architecture is quite complicated. Also, creating a system is kind of a given for airborne early warning, but there needs to be a central platform doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. Thus, the teams will need to revolve around a platform prime.

While the overall price of the program will depend on the final design, Aboulafia predicts everything put together could cost in the $10 billion range to buy an equivalent of the original 17-aircraft NATO purchase. And that money may well be worth it for the alliance, according to Barrie.

Its been a practical and a symbolic asset, he said, and in the current European security environment air surveillance and C2 isnt becoming any less important.

Valerie Insinna in Washington contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
The race is on to replace NATO's early-warning aircraft fleet - DefenseNews.com

Related Post

Comments are closed.

Archives